Should she stay, or should she go now?

[Old Greg]

Rules is rules. Doesn't get any more black and white than that. The law doesn't do shades of grey and if people start bending them when it suits them all hell will break loose.

Have you heard of IR35? There's a search function if not.

[vetran]

How would this set a legal precedent?

Try here:
Judicial precedent

Simpler

One of the major problems in the early centuries was to produce a system that was certain in its operation and predictable in its outcomes. Too many judges were either partial or incompetent, acquiring their positions only by virtue of their rank in society. Thus, a standardised procedure slowly emerged, based on a system termed stare decisis which basically means "let the decision stand". The doctrine of precedent which requires similar cases to be adjudicated in a like manner, falls under the principle of stare decisis. Thus, the ratio decidendi (reason for decision) of each case will bind future cases on the same generic set of facts both horizontally and vertically in the court structure. The highest appellate court in the UK is the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and its decisions are binding on every other court in the hierarchy which are obliged to apply its rulings as the law of the land. The Court of Appeal binds the lower courts, and so on.

So if we let her stay every lawyer will cite this situation as a precedent until some judge agrees.

[Old Greg]

Try here:
Judicial precedent

Simpler


So if we let her stay every lawyer will cite this situation as a precedent until some judge agrees.

But if the Home Secretary grants exceptional leave (or whatever it's called now), how would that be a judicial precedent?

[vetran]

But if the Home Secretary grants exceptional leave (or whatever it's called now), how would that be a judicial precedent?

So if we let her stay every lawyer will cite this situation as a precedent until some judge agrees.

[Old Greg]

So if we let her stay every lawyer will cite this situation as a precedent until some judge agrees.

But it's an executive/political decision (if made by Home Secretary), not a judicial decision, so there is no judicial precedent.

[northernladuk]

It appears Air Mauritius wouldn't take her either.

[eek]

The court this case was being appealed at is a long way below the ones that create precedent.

I really do worry about the general knowledge of many people on this site.... Especially when you think the people here are more intelligent than the general public

No wonder people believe those tax scams....

[sasguru]

But it's an executive/political decision (if made by Home Secretary), not a judicial decision, so there is no judicial precedent.

Stop. You're confusing him. Go slowly.

[eek]

It appears Air Mauritius wouldn't take her either.

Its quite simple by the sounds of it.

Just answer no to the question did you pack this bag yourself ....

[sasguru]

Its quite simple by the sounds of it.

Just answer no to the question did you pack this bag yourself ....